WHoops. Fumbled up the editing. My error. I've fixed it.Haha yeah but you quoted meIt's the wrong name above the quote
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Max Yuryev tests the MBP 15" CPUs: 2.2 vs 2.6 vs 2.9
- Thread starter sennomulo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Correct. This Creetoloser fella has been banging the drums on these huge increases in performance and revenue gains from time saved etc since yesterday. The original question for this topic did not factor at all the 2017 model. I was simply about the differences in performance on the new 2018's. Sure, a 30% gain from a 2017 to the top of the line 2018 makes sense, but you will not be seeing those gains between the 2018 models. Its closer to 4-5% from the base 2.2 to 2.6 and a maximum of 15% from the 2.2 to the i9.
It seems that Photozoom does indeed have GPU acceleration, so that pretty much invalidates Barefeat's test with respect to whether or not it can be used for judging CPU performance, as they tested it with different GPU's for the 2.2 (555x) vs the 2.6 and 2.9 (560x)
I really hope that some reliable people are willing to put in the work for a fair comparison between these CPU's.As I understand Barefeat is supposed to be really good, but these tests clearly have some problems.
I really hope that some reliable people are willing to put in the work for a fair comparison between these CPU's.As I understand Barefeat is supposed to be really good, but these tests clearly have some problems.
It think that at this point all of them will be post patch, with some reviews still showing the results they have gotten before the patch to compare them.
Last edited:
I worked at Porsche for years. This is absolutely true with cars too. A 911 Carrera S spec'd out to $150,000 because it has $35,000 in options won't be worth but maybe $5,000 more than a relatively base 911 Carrera S.
Yeah people buying used machines probably aren't prioritizing things like massive 32GB RAM or a top spec CPU - or they would be buying new machines - so there won't be much return on those options when you go to sell. Disk space is the only thing I could see the majority of used Mac buyers caring about.
A new comparison of all three models was posted on YouTube. It’s in French but they use lots of charts that are self-explanatory:
The i7 2.6 and i9 are again pretty close in many tests, however in a few applications the i9 is a clear winner.
The i7 2.6 and i9 are again pretty close in many tests, however in a few applications the i9 is a clear winner.
I ultimately went with the 2.2 GHz model myself. The faster processor may be worth the cost for some users, particularly those who are making money off their machines, but that's not me and in the end I'm satisfied to save some money and have a machine almost as powerful as the specced-out model.
Can't wait for the new imacs tbh!!! I wake up and check here every morning to see if any new news has dropped on them!
C'MON TIM!! LET ME SPEND MY BEANS ON A NEW IMAC
Very detailed video, unfortunately it also used the 555x on the 2.2 version so it has the same problem as the other tests.
Also, Barefeats just completed his analysis and suddenly the 2.2 is the fastest in the Photozoom test, so yeah...
Last edited:
Yes, I agree, it’s more useful for people trying to decide between the 2.6 and 2.9 CPUs. I also wonder how large the effect of the 32GB Ram in the i9 model vs the 16GB Ram in the i7 model is in some tests (for example the Lightroom import). Apple says the 32GB option is faster, but I’m not sure whether this plays any significant role here.
Do the tests yourself.
It's just shocking to see people who have money to spend and want the fastest computers in the world, but can't test machines for themselves to see if it gets the improvement they need over their old Mac. Just go on a forum and grumble and rage like that orange man on Twitter.
You keep saying the same thing, so just to clear it up for you: This thread is not about this years performance compared to last years or any year before. We are not arguing that these are slow machines. What we are talking about and hoping to find out, is which version of this year's MacBook to buy based on the price and performance differences.
This thread is about if you could have shaved off 35% instead of 30% from your touted batch processes if you had bought the 2.9 instead of the 2.6, or that it would've also delivered the same 30%.
If you suggest that I should just buy a 2.2 and a 2.6 to compare them to my 2.9, that's just silly.
Last edited:
Actually I said forum members should put up real world tests of their own creation and lets share real world results.
I'll upload actions and files tomorrow.
It really depends on whether or not the task is memory-bound, i.e. whether or not 16GB RAM is a performance-limiter (bottleneck).
I can't imagine a Lightroom import would be memory-bound. Three (primary) things are occurring; copying files from one place to another, updating metadata, and generating previews. These tasks would be primarily I/O and processor-bound (unsure if GPU is used for previews/raw-processing).
We don't have to. That's why organizations like the FDA, EPA, and many more exist. So that everyday people don't have to conduct scientific tests to determine the best solution. You have a plethora of youtubers with the ability to afford all the machines and conducts various tests that will simulate and push the machines to the limit so that in turn people like us can compare it to our use case and determine which machine will serve us. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. You bought your i9 and you happy with it. Good for you. Others throw more caution to the wind and would rather research if the extra $400,$500,$600 is worth the small increase in performance amongst the 2.2, 2.6 and i9.
I am kind of like you in that regard. Hoping Mojave brings more optimizations. But also the machine is perfect in every other way, so thinking it is worth the $270 (discounted price) to not have to enter the exchange lottery and hope the next one is also as perfect.
If ~$100 isn't worth it from 2.2 to 2.6, you can also argue going from 555 to 560 is not worth it either.
Why 560x vs 555x?
Not challenging, genuinely curious what benefits the 560x provide that are worth the $100 extra?
If you watch Max Yuryev's video you can use the difference between the 2.2 (with the 555X) and the 2.6/2.9 (with the 560X) as what you get for the $100. This is because in the very extensive battery of tests he conducted, the 2.2,2.6 and 2.9 are basically identical in performance. so any differences between the 2.2 and the other 2 processors can be attributed to the GPU. You need not pay much heed to certain individuals in this thread (I am sure you know who they are) who are determined to find some advantage to the i9 compared to the i7 where no such noticable differences exist
Last edited:
Cute. Quote just a sentence and not the whole post for sake of context. Your making it seem like we all have to do our own research and come to a conclusion. Not the case. Agencies like the ones I listed exist for the sole reason of testing various foods, medications, fuel efficiency, etc, so the general public doesn't have to. Same thing for the youtubers we are using as a resource to test out products so WE don't have to. I think it was a simple easily understandable analogy.
My 555x when fully loaded sits at 70-75C, stable base clock, fans are not maxed out, so there is some headroom left for 560x to take advantage of. OpenGL benchmarks show about 10-15% improvement, if you look at shaders count and clock speed it should be more than that, so I guess 560x also hits thermal limit. Also the CPU heats up to 75C even when idle and GPU is loaded. So in my opinion there is some, although small, performance gain in favor of 560, but for me it’s not worth not even money, but rather additional heat and stress put on the system.